Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Promoting interdisciplinary understanding in asynchronous online higher education courses: a learning communities approach

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to examine whether, and how, an asynchronous online learning community pedagogical approach can address students’ challenge of integrating disciplinary ideas into an interdisciplinary understanding. A quasi-experimental research design was conducted in which 51 undergraduate students were allocated into two groups who learned a similar asynchronous online interdisciplinary course. The two groups differed in the learning mode in which the courses were designed and taught: a learning community (LC) mode for the experimental group, versus an individual learning (IL) mode for the control group. We used a designated rubric to compare the quality of students’ interdisciplinary understanding, as expressed in a synthesis essay each student wrote. Findings show that students’ abilities to synthesize disciplinary ideas were significantly higher in the LC group. Since synthesis of disciplinary ideas is the goal and essence of interdisciplinarity, we view these findings as indicating a higher quality of interdisciplinary understanding among the LC mode students. This work demonstrates and delineates the potential of the LC approach to promote the development of interdisciplinary understanding in higher-education asynchronous online environments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

LC:

Learning Community

IL:

Individual Learning

BBIL:

Boundary Breaking for Interdisciplinary Learning

LINKS:

Learning in a Networked Society

ILPCV:

Interdisciplinary Learning as a Pragmatic Constructionist View

KI:

Knowledge Integration

References

  • Arum, R., Roksa, J., & Cho, E. (2011). Improving undergraduate learning: Findings and policy recommendations from the SSRC-CLA longitudinal project. Social Science Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2012). Epistemic thinking in action: Evaluating and integrating online sources. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 39–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai, S., Zohar, A. R., & Mor-Hagani, S. (2018). Promoting integration of multiple texts: A review of instructional approaches and practices. Educational Psychology review, 30(3), 973–999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauminger-Zviely, N., Eden, S., Zancanaro, M., Weiss, P. L., & Gal, E. (2013). Increasing social engagement in children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder using collaborative technologies in the school environment. Autism, 17(3), 317–339.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bielaczyc, K., Kapur, M., & Collins, A. (2013). Cultivating a community of learners in K-12 classrooms. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. M. O’Donnell (Eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 233–249). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishnoi, N. (2017). Collaborative learning: A learning tool advantages and disadvantages. Indian Journal of Health & Wellbeing, 8(8), 850–852.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boix Mansilla, V. (2010). Learning to synthesize: The development of interdisciplinary understanding. In R. Frodeman, J. Thompson-Klein, C. Mitcham, & J. B. Holbrook (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 288–306). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boix Mansilla, V., & Duraising, E. D. (2007). Targeted assessment of students’ interdisciplinary work: An empirically grounded framework proposed. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(2), 215–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boix Mansilla, V., Dawes Duraisingh, E., Wolfe, C. R., & Haynes, C. (2009). Targeted assessment rubric: An empirically grounded rubric for interdisciplinary writing. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(3), 334–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradbeer, J. (1999). Barriers to interdisciplinarity: Disciplinary discourses and student learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 23(3), 381–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brint, S. G., Turk-Bicakci, L., Proctor, K., & Murphy, S. P. (2009). Expanding the social frame of knowledge: Interdisciplinary, degree-granting fields in american colleges and universities, 1975–2000. The Review of Higher Education, 32(2), 155–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromham, L., Dinnage, R., & Hua, X. (2016). Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success. Nature, 534(7609), 684–687.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind. College English, 46(7), 635–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (2015). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Ravenio Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capdeferro, N., & Romero, M. (2012). Are online learners frustrated with collaborative learning experiences? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(2), 26–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, N. J., Hilton, M. L. (Eds.) (2015). Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. NAP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cress, U., Moskaliuk, J., & Jeong, H. (Eds.) (2016). Mass collaboration and education (Vol 16)  Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Czerniak, C. M. (2007). Interdisciplinary science teaching. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 537–559). Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumford, A. D., & Miller, A. L. (2018). Online learning in higher education: Exploring advantages and disadvantages for engagement. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(3), 452–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisen, A., Hall, A., Lee, S., T., & Zupko, J. (2009). Teaching water: Connecting across disciplines and into daily life to address complex societal issues. College Teaching, 57(2), 99–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fong, C., & Slotta, J. D. (2018). Supporting communities of learners in the elementary classroom: The common knowledge learning environment. Instructional Science, 46(4), 533–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frickel, S., Albert, M., & Prainsack, B. (Eds.) (2017). Investigating interdisciplinary collaboration: Theory and practice across disciplines. Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frodeman, R. (2010). Introduction. In R. Frodeman, J. Thompson-Klein, C. Mitcham, & J. B. Holbrook (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 29–39). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerard, L., Kidron, A., & Linn, M. C. (2019). Guiding collaborative revision of science explanations. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 14(3), 291–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gvili, I. E. F., Weissburg, M. J., Yen, J., Helms, M. E., & Tovey, C. A. (2016). Development of scoring rubric for evaluating integrated understanding in an undergraduate biologically-inspired design course. International Journal of Engeeniring Education, 32(1A), 123–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagay, G., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2011). A shadow curriculum: Incorporating students’ interests into the formal biology curriculum. Research in Science Education, 41(5), 611–634.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A. (2021). What the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us about teachers and teaching. Facets, 6(1), 1835–1863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrenkohl, L. R., Lund, K., Polman, J. L., Radinsk, J., Suthers, D., Tabak, I., & Kidron, A. (2018). Life-long life-wide learning within and beyond the disciplines. In Rethinking learning in the digital age: Making the learning sciences count, ICLS 2018 Proceedings (vol. 3, pp. 1290–1295). ISLS.

  • Higheagle Strong, Z., & McMain, E. M. (2020). Social emotional learning for social emotional justice: A conceptual framework for education in the midst of pandemics. Northwest Journal of Teacher Education, 15(2), 6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hod, Y., Bielaczyc, K., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2018). Revisiting learning communities: Innovations in theory and practice. Instructional Science, 46(4), 489–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopper, K. B. (2003). In defense of the solitary learner: A response to collaborative, constructivist education. Educational Technology, 43(2), 24–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howells, K. (2018). The future of education and skills: education 2030: the future we want. OECD. Retrieved from: https://repository.canterbury.ac.uk/download/96f6c3f39ae6dcffa26e72cefe47684172da0c93db0a63d78668406e4f478ae8/3102592/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20%2805.04.2018%29.pdf

  • Huutoniemi, K. (2010). Evaluating interdisciplinary research. In R. Frodeman, J. Thompson-Klein, C. Mitcham, & J. B. Holbrook (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 309–320). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jawahir, I. S., Badurdeen, F., & Rouch, K. E. (2015). Innovation in sustainable manufacturing education. Universitätsverlag der TU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kali, Y. (2006). Collaborative knowledge building using the Design Principles Database. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 187–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kali, Y., Levin-Peled, R., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). The role of design-principles in designing courses that promote collaborative learning in higher-education. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 1067–1078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kali, Y., Baram-Tsabary, A., & Schejter, A. (Eds.) (2019). Learning in a networked society. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, S., & Earl, L. (2010). Learning about networked learning communities. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(1), 27–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ke, F., & Carr-Chellman, A. (2006). Solitary learner in online collaborative learning: A disappointing experience? Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(3), 249–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidron, A., & Kali, Y. (2015). Boundary breaking for interdisciplinary learning. Research in Learning Technology. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v23.26496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidron, A., & Kali, Y. (2017). Extending the applicability of design-based research through research-practice partnerships. Design Research. https://doi.org/10.15460/eder.1.2.1157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., et al. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 211–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ledford, H. (2015). How to solve the world’s biggest problems. Nature, 525(309), 308–311.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, F. P. (2017). An analysis of synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in e-learning. Advanced Science and Technology Letters, 143(46), 230–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C. (2006). The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 243–264). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. S. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, O. L., Lee, H., Hofstetter, C., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Assessing knowledge integration in science: Construct, measures, and evidence. Educational Assessment, 13(1), 33–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, O. L., Ryoo, K., Linn, M. C., Sato, E., & Svihla, V. (2015). Measuring knowledge integration learning of energy topics: A two-year longitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 1044–1066.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lui, M., & Slotta, J. D. (2014). Immersive simulations for smart classrooms: Exploring evolutionary concepts in secondary science. Technology Pedagogy and Education, 23(1), 57–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyall, C., Meagher, L., Bandola, J., & Kettle, A. (2016). Interdisciplinary provision in higher education: Current and future challenges. Higher Education Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod, M. (2018). What makes interdisciplinarity difficult? Some consequences of domain specificity in interdisciplinary practice. Synthese, 195(2), 697–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makewa, L. N., Gitonga, D., Ngussa, B., Njoroge, S., & Kuboja, J. (2014). Frustration factor in group collaborative learning experiences. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(11A), 16–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markauskaite, L., Muukkonen, H., Damsa, C., Thompson, K., Arthars, N., Celik, I., Sutphen, M., Esterhazy, R., Solbrekke, T. D., Sugrue, C., McCune, V., Wheeler, P., Vasco, D., & Kali, Y. (2020). Interdisciplinary Learning in Undergraduate and Graduate Education: Conceptualizations and Empirical Accounts. In Gresalfi, M. and Horn, I. S. (Eds.), The Interdisciplinarity of the Learning Sciences, 14th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2020, Vol 1 (pp. 398–405). Nashville, Tennessee: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  • Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in philosophy and education, 27(4), 283–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowacek, R. S. (2005). A discourse-based theory of interdisciplinary connections. The Journal of General Education, 54(3), 171–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, J., Michaels, S., Affolter, R., & O’Connor, C. (2017). Traditions, research, and practice supporting academically productive classroom discourse. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A. L., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, H., Schweingruber, H., & Keller, T. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The national academies press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B., Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2010). How (well structured) talk builds the mind. Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching and human development, 163–194.

  • Richter, D. M., & Paretti, M. C. (2009). Identifying barriers to and outcomes of interdisciplinarity in the engineering classroom. European Journal of Engineering Education, 34(1), 29–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, E. D., Morzillo, A. T., Seijo, F., Reddy, S. M., Rhemtulla, J. M., Milder, J. C., et al. (2013). The elusive pursuit of interdisciplinarity at the human - environment interface. BioScience, 63(9), 745–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryoo, K., & Linn, M. C. (2015). Designing and validating assessments of complex thinking in science. Theory into Practice, 54(3), 238–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1991). From theory to practice: The international science classroom – a technology-intensive, exploratory, team-based and interdisciplinary high school project. Educational Technology, 31(3), 41–44.

  • Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 18–36.

  • Sagy, O., Kali, Y., Tsaushu, M., & Tal, T. (2016). The culture of learning continuum: Promoting internal values in higher education. Studies in higher education, 43, 416–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). FCL and knowledge building: A continuing dialogue. Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology, University of Toronto Retrieved from http://www.ikit.org/fulltext/AnnBrownOct10.06.pdf

  • Schwendimann, B. A., & Linn, M. C. (2015). Comparing two forms of concept map critique activities to facilitate knowledge integration processes in evolution education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(1), 70–94.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, J., Sung, S., & Zhang, D. (2015). Toward an analytic framework of interdisciplinary reasoning and communication processes in science. International Journal of Science Education, 37(17), 2809–2835.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Slotta, J. D., & Najafi, H. (2010). Knowledge communities in the classroom. In P. L. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 189–196). Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Slotta, J. D., & Peters, V. (2008). A blended model for knowledge communities: Embedding scaffolded inquiry. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference for the learning sciences-Vol. 2 (pp. 343–350). ISLS.

  • Smith, R. O. (2005). Working with difference in online collaborative groups. Adult Education Quarterly, 55(3), 182–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spelt, E. J. H., Luning, P. A., van Boekel, M. A. J. S., & Mulder, M. (2015). Constructively aligned teaching and learning in higher education in engineering: What do students perceive as contributing to the learning of interdisciplinary thinking? European Journal of Engineering Education, 40(5), 459–475.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D., Lund, K., Rosé, C. P., Teplovs, C., & Law, N. (2013). Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions. Springer Science Business Media.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2009). P21 Framework Definitions. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf

  • Thompson-Klein, J. (2010). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In R. Frodeman, J. Thompson-Klein, C. Mitcham, & J. B. Holbrook (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 15–30). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., & Mishra, P. (2013). Challenges to learning and schooling in the digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5), 403–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webber, S. B. (2016). The charrette design model provides a means to promote collaborative design in higher education. Journal of Systemics, 14(1), 84–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, M. B., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents’ text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 467–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woo, Y., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by I-CORE (Israeli Centers for Research Excellence), Grant Number 1716/12.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Haifa, LINKS I-CORE, 199 Aba Khoushy Ave. Mount Carmel, 3498838, Haifa, Israel

    Adi Kidron & Yael Kali

Authors
  1. Adi Kidron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yael Kali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adi Kidron.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Example of an analysis of a 1000 words essay submitted as a mid-course assignment by Rita, one of the leading students in the course.

The essay question: In light of the three disciplinary domains recently presented in the course, what are the roles of teachers and students in a networked society, and how are they different from roles that are more traditional?

Assessment of Rita's essay

Main ideas in Rita's essay

Examples of Rita's ideas

Essay introduction

 Rita opens up by presenting the essay question and explaining its importance and relevancy. Then she explains the interdisciplinary rationale – the benefits of exploring the question through different disciplinary perspectives. She ends up the introduction with her own personal connection to the topic

 Relevant criteria: purposefulness, integrative lens

• The essay question regards the roles of teachers and students in a networked society

• The essay would focus on the educational implications of the networked society rather than the technological changes it enabled

• Each given disciplinary resource presents a different relevant educational context: higher education in the first resource, high school in the second and informal education in the third resource

• The essay question is personally relevant to the writer who is a pre-service teacher building up her own educational beliefs

"It is very important for us, as pre-service teachers, to understand these implications in order to adapt our future teaching style to the vast technological changes, and to develop our teaching credo"

Description and analysis of first disciplinary resource

 Rita fully presents the main ideas of the first disciplinary resource and then critically analyses them in light of the essay question thereby gaining relevant insights for the interdisciplinary synthesis

 Relevant criteria: disciplinary grounding, disciplinary analysis through integrative lens

• The first resource discusses the design of technology-based instruction to promote a transition to a learning culture that is based on internal values

• This transition involves a gradual change in the roles of both instructors and students: instructors are becoming facilitators rather than transmitters of information, students are becoming active learners rather than passive listeners

• Both teachers and students are involved in knowledge construction thereby blurring traditional hierarchies

"As a result of the changes in the roles of the instructor and the students, a more intimate and active relationship is being formed: the boundary is broken and both sides are becoming partners in the creation of knowledge. The instructor remains the main source of knowledge, but not the exclusive one"

Description and analysis of second disciplinary resource

 Rita partially presents the main ideas of the second disciplinary resource (the design of the intervention is missing). She identifies links to the first disciplinary resource. Her critical analysis in light of the essay question yields new insights to the interdisciplinary synthesis

 Relevant criteria: disciplinary grounding, disciplinary analysis through integrative lens, idea connection

• The second resource discusses the incorporation of students' questions in the curriculum as means to promote intrinsic motivation for learning

• Both resources demonstrate how a change in the teaching culture leads to a change in the learning culture

• By giving students the ability to influence the course of instruction while respecting their contributions, the resource presents teacher's authority that is based on mutual respect and concern rather than on being the source of information

"Incorporating students' questions led to an increase in intrinsic motivation for learning. This was exemplified in addressing the basic needs of learning: competence (empowering students' ability to better understand the content and gain more knowledge); autonomy (students' initiative and influence on the learning processes they experience); relatedness (strengthen meaningful and supportive social bonds with other students and with the teacher"

Description and analysis of third disciplinary resource

 Rita shortly presents the main ideas of the third resource and critically analyses it in light of the essay question to gain meaningful insights. Even though she compares it to the other two resources, she misses additional potential interdisciplinary insights since her comparison focuses on the different goals of the researches rather than on the issue of teacher and student roles

 Relevant criteria: disciplinary grounding, disciplinary analysis through integrative lens, idea connection

• The third resource discusses learning of social skills in which content is only means to an end

• Technology enables cooperation and collaboration that are crucial for social skills

• The role of the "teacher" includes therapeutic and behavioral aspects. Technology can assist in understanding the needs of the "student" and to design a personalized learning experience by the "teacher"

• A opposed to the other two resources, the current resource does not focus on changing the learning and teaching cultures, but rather on promoting collaboration in order to minimize social gaps

"Following the intervention, the main change that occurred in the role of the students has to do with their new ability to collaborate with each other

The implementation of the technology-based games enabled the instructor to actively and dynamically intervene in the design of the participants' learning experience"

Essay summary

 Rita concludes the paper with a coherent synthesis of the different insights she gained from the analysis of each disciplinary resource in order to address the essay question. Furthermore, she critically reflects on her own synthesis

 Relevant criteria: synthesis

• To conclude, there is a common trend of change in the roles of teachers and students and in the traditional balance between them

• The change seems more apparent in the context of higher education, where there is more flexibility and openness to new approaches

• The broad essay question was addressed by the given resources only, which might limit the scope and nature of the conclusions

"The evolvement of the networked society had a major impact on the roles of students and teachers, so as on their relations and interactions

Yet, based on the given resources, one could identify the differential nature of this impact"

The final score Rita received for her essay (2.8) is based on the assessment of its different parts, as described above.

Criterion

Grade

 

1–Purposefulness

3

An elaborated reference to the context and the importance of the topic and to the interdisciplinary rationale

2–Integrative lens

3

A clear description that enables to understand the chosen personal perspective that guides the interdisciplinary work

3–Disciplinary grounding

2

A partial understanding of some/all of the disciplinary ideas (e.g., not detailed enough, over detailed with non-relevant ideas)

4–Idea connection

3

Connections regarding all three disciplinary domains

5–Disciplinary analysis through integrative lens

3

All three disciplinary domains are systematically and fully analyzed through the integrative lens

6–Synthesis

3

The interdisciplinary answer/conclusion is based on integration of ideas from all three domains, and contributes meaningful and relevant understandings

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kidron, A., Kali, Y. Promoting interdisciplinary understanding in asynchronous online higher education courses: a learning communities approach. Instr Sci 52, 139–169 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09635-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09635-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation